Irrespective of all factors such as age, sex, etc. how do you rate :


1. Somebody who runs 5k under 30min

2. Somebody who runs 5k under 25min

3. Somebody who runs 5k under 20min

4. Somebody who runs 5k under 17min

__________________
Recruitment, business and education network

1. Faster than me
2. A lot faster than me
3. An awful lot faster than me
4. Massively faster than me

__________________
Cautiously potter-along puddy

Ditto

In november i ran a 10 k the first 5k in under 20 mins i'm quite old and decrepit and i'd rate that time as must do better can do better.

However i would rate anybody who runs any of these times/distances as fantastic for actually getting out there and doing it!

The obviuos question is why the need to know skillipedia?

I used to inhabit a world where anything outside 15 and a half minutes was seen as something of a disaster... So don't really know how to approach this one.
But hey, if everyone is giving 100% the performances are all of equal value, don't you think?

__________________
GONE RUNNING

I don't think everyone is built to be able to attain some of these speeds, so like pedestrian says as long as you give 100%.

I have been told that you are not a real runner unless you can run 10k in under 40 mins, this is borderline snobbery.

__________________
In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Bird in Boots

But surely you can't rate those times as you say "Irrespective of all factors such as age, sex, etc.". I have been running for just over 2 years, best 5k time is 21:21, and while I believe sub-20 is possible for me, at 54 I have a limited window to achieve it. On the other hand if I was still in my 20s and could only do 25 mins, I would have a long time ahead of me to work on bringing that down dramatically. I'm also naturally slim, so despite taking up running late in life, I was able to get to this sort of time easier than someone who was carrying a lot of wieght.

__________________
Don

Very hard to gauge it... as carlton says - it entirely depends on age, length of time training etc. I honestly believe that with the right training, at the right intensity, for the right amount of time, virtually anyone on this forum could manage sub 20min for 5k.

as a fairly crude summary though, i'd say:

30min+ Beginner
<30min Recreational Runner
<25min Regular Runner
<20min Competitive
<17min Very Competitive -> Elite

__________________
www.richardsimkiss.co.uk - Glooston 10k report added

Same answer for all of them -

Someone who hasn't even warmed up yet!!

if you're going to do a run, at least make it a sensible distance; that's hardly worth the journey over!

I don't think you can rate times for this distance without considering age, sex etc. I think a 60 year old that can run a sub 25 minute 5 km is far more impressive than me running an 18 minute 5km at 34 years young. And a woman running my times is clearly a better athlete than me. For example, I looked at the finishing times of the recent Edinburgh half marathon, and my best time for that distance (along most of the same route) would have placed me as the 4th best female, but since I'm a man I would have placed around 55th for the men. There is a reason they categorise by sex and, for the veterans races by age.

Also, I don't think the 5km is a good distance to measure how good a runner is or general fitness, because I'm sure there lots of people who could post quite a fast time for 5km but be rubbish at anything further. When I started running, I could do 5km in 21 minutes, but my 10km best at that time was around 48 minutes. After 2 years of running, I can run the first 10km of a half marathon in 38 minutes (haven't timed myself over a straight 10km for a long time), but I've only knocked just over 2 minutes off my 5km time.

Having said that, I think anyone who can run a sub-17 minute 5km is awesome. I dream about running that fast, but not sure I ever could.